Fussy lens or sharp lens for this project?

[Toyon]

The sharp pictures are very good. They do make me wonder what a polarizer would have done to reduce window reflectivity? But that might have other unintended consequences. In my opinion, good soft-focus pictures are extremely challenging. My better results have been achieved in using soft focus for things that we don't see very sharply to begin with. The Pictorialist masters of soft-focus were best with distant perspectives, trees and leaves, rocks, distant views, water bodies, glancing, specular light and faces. These are things that we are used to seeing in masses or without great sharpness. Buildings are all about hard angles and deep focus, so they do not lend themselves to soft-focus. I think we have been led to believe that soft-focus brings a kind of mythical quality to things. I don't think that is true, instead it helps us see complicated things, such as dappled light in a forest or moving water, in greater clarity by simplifying the complexity of a scene and bringing to the foreground the impression of light and shadow.

[Bill_1856]

Definitely prefer sharp.
Cars are all right, (maybe even a good thing), but you need to shoot from much higher viewpoint so the cars don't overpower the picture to the determent of the buildings.

[Vaughn]

Do not like the effect of the fuzzy lens in your examples. Looks more out of focus than soft focus. Obnoxious.

[8x10 user]

When I use soft focus lenses, I like to set the focus point further infront of the subject as I find the areas at the end of the band of focus to be most appealing. Also, with soft focus lenses, the out of focus areas behind a subject generally have better bokeh then in front of the subject.

[DrTang]

Why not cars? People 50 years from now when all the buildings are gone, will look at these photos and marvel at the quaint, obsolete old cars.

agree..infact I keep all the pix with old cars if I buy a lot of pix or negs - (planes, trains, autos and people with dead animals...boats too though)

but... IDK.. I think just the buildings in this case..and then maybe another project of parked cars

might be wrong though.. it just kinda bugged me that there was one car..or a couple empty spots

for me..I'd like to see no cars..or all filled up spaces

that's me though

but....sharp anyway

[Richard Wasserman]

I like the idea of the cars, but I think Richard could utilize them a bit more effectively. They need to be a useful part of the composition and not just random objects. For myself I feel that the photos would be stronger if taken with a wider lens (I'm assuming moving farther back is impossible) so there is more context and the autos are less dominant.

agree..infact I keep all the pix with old cars if I buy a lot of pix or negs - (planes, trains, autos and people with dead animals...boats too though)

but... IDK.. I think just the buildings in this case..and then maybe another project of parked cars

might be wrong though.. it just kinda bugged me that there was one car..or a couple empty spots

for me..I'd like to see no cars..or all filled up spaces

that's me though

but....sharp anyway

[richardman]

Thanks all for the comments. Some very good points there. I will play around and see...

One thing I have decided is to do this in color vs, B&W. Everything else in in flux. Christmas may be the only time the street is empty, or at night. We will see.

Thanks again.

[Adamphotoman]

I too like the sharper images. Although I appreciate the tonality of the images I find that there is an odd colour cast. Is this intended?

[richardman]

I too like the sharper images. Although I appreciate the tonality of the images I find that there is an odd colour cast. Is this intended?

I need to tone down the blue channel.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Sharp images for historical evidence.

Soft images are like listening to oral history from a guy with a mouth full of marbles.